> Have you ever talked to any citizens from Tourist Metros (Berlin, Paris, Porto, Milan) in Europe, Tourism is not what defined any of those cities nor is it of hyper-essential economic importance.

Then why would you expect it to have any major effect on housing availability there?

> Tourism for itself only works for purpose built resorts and specialized, not so urban destinations

Disagree. Look at New York City. It's full of tourists who come there for the city itself. And it has hardly destroyed the city.

> Unregulated conversion from housing capacity to other uses destroys the social core of neighborhoods, if there are no hard enforced laws against it.

This is only true if building new housing is prohibited, because otherwise conversion isn't necessary. If tourists want to come, converting existing housing only makes sense if it's unoccupied, otherwise it's more profitable to carry on collecting rents from existing housing and build new housing for tourists so you can get their money too. (There may be cases where it makes more sense to build new housing for long-term residents while converting existing stock for tourists depending on the nature of the existing stock, but that still isn't a reduction of housing stock for existing residents.)

What deprives people of housing and makes it cost more is refusing to build more in respond to higher demand.